The Canal and River Trust is urging cyclists to ‘Stay Kind, Slow Down’ and will be encouraging riders to stay below 8mph.
A speed tracker will be trialled on canal towpaths in the West Midlands and Staffordshire to encourage cyclists on the shared use paths to slow down.
The device will be set up so anyone cycling below 8mph will get a ‘Thank You’ message while faster cyclists will be told to ‘#StayKindSlowDown’.
The automated signs will be trialled by the waterways and wellbeing charity for a month in Wolverhampton, Birmingham and Coventry, along with Stone in Staffordshire, The Express and Star report.
Gavin Passmore, community engagement manager at Canal & River Trust, said: “We know that our canals played a crucial role during lockdown for exercise and wellbeing.
“This was particularly important in urban areas where many people don’t have back gardens, as people stayed local and discovered these amazing wildlife corridors on their doorstep
“We want people to use the canals, including cyclists, but ask everyone to be considerate of others on the towpath.
“Whilst most people are kind and courteous, if you are on a bike, it can just mean slowing down and cycling at a leisurely pace.”
Trial locations include The Birmingham Main Line Canal at the Wolverhampton Lock Flight, in Birmingham at Cambrian Wharf, and The Trent and Mersey Canal in Stone.
Other spots are at The Worcester and Birmingham Canal at Selly Oak and at Coventry Basin – with the locations chosen due to them being the most popular in the region.
Mr Passmore added: “We’re asking cyclists to be sensible and to think about where they are and the people around them.
“Those on foot, including boaters accessing the water, have priority on our towpaths and, quite simply, those on bikes who need or want to travel quickly should use a route away from the canal.
“On busy stretches of canal or where the towpath is narrow, the safest option may be to get off your bike and walk.”
66 thoughts on “Canal and River Trust urge cyclists to stay below 8mph on towpaths”
Seems this will just
Seems this will just encourage cyclists to go back to the roads.
This is perfectly reasonable.
This is perfectly reasonable.
If there’s nobody around (including looking for footpath access through hedges and moored boats where pedestrians may suddenly join the towpath), then there is no harm in doing whatever speed you like – always at the risk that some paths can spit you into the canal.
But where pedestrians are around, we should be giving way to them in any case. At 8 mph, we are at a similar speed to faster mobility scooters. Many towpaths are narrow enough that one party or other needs to wait to allow another to pass the opposite way, even if both are on foot. They were never designed as high speed, multi-modal active travel routes, they were there for somebody to lead a horse at walking pace.
Canals are a great leisure opportunity for gentle cycling, but they aren’t suitable as a sports route for cycling. And local authorities should not be factoring them into cycling connectivity, other than as leisure facilities. That means that, as Rick55tn says, some cyclists will be encouraged back on to the roads… which is where the cycle infrastructure should be going anyway.
Proper cycle infrastructure for decent local connectivity; well maintained towpaths for leisure, to be used considerately.
GMBasix wrote:
I’m with this. Ride to suit the most vulnerable user.
I agree. But why do the rust
I agree. But why do the rust repeatedly and successfully apply for cycling related funds if they know their towpaths are unsuitable? It’s almost fraudulent how much money they have secured from cycling related funds
A surface suitable for
A surface suitable for cycling is also one that is suitable for wheelchairs and mobility aids.
Just because there’s a smooth surface does not mean you have to use it as a Strava segment!
What you’re saying about
What you’re saying about going slow when pedestrians are around is reasonable. Unfortunately, that is not what the goon from the Canals & Rivers Trust is saying.
Why is he a goon. Needless
Why is he a goon. Needless offensive language will win you no friends.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
I think it is in the spirit of what he is saying, specifically:
From the C&RT’s web site,
Meanwhile, in a shocking display of anti-boat sentiment, the speed limit for boats on most canals is 4mph.
Ahh, but a cyclist riding at
Ahh, but a cyclist riding at the heady speed of 9mph does not create a towpath destroying wash…
Two questions:
Two questions:
will this mean that the canal and rivers trust will repay the millions they have received in grants to resurface canal towpaths with the specific aim of encouraging commuting cycling?
will this speed limit also apply to joggers and to dogs?
the little onion wrote:
I’ve never seen dogs riding bikes. Or joggers tbh. Well not when they are jogging anyway….
We had a dog who would always
We had a dog who would always bite people on a bike.
We had to take the bike away from him.
Tbh, 8 mph for runners? 7
Tbh, 8 mph for runners? 7 minutes 30 per mile, they’d not be doing too bad for themselves – that’s coming up for 1 hour 40 half marathon pace!
Sure, most joggers will be
Sure, most joggers will be slower than 8mph, but it’s not unreasonable to expect the fastest 10% or so to be above that.
And????
And????
Runtilyoudrop wrote:
+10% is the concession before the police will put points on your jogging licence
I’m pretty sure the grants
I’m pretty sure the grants and Section 106 monies were not for ‘encouraging communting cycling’ but to create paths that had surfaces suitable for cycling and for disabled users.
Famlly cycling and ‘pootling’ are improved by better surfaces, and smooth surfaces are great for getting those in wheelchairs and with mobility difficulties down by the water.
The towpath is not the place for fast riding – it’s a place to enjoy the journey and savour the atmosphere – rural or urban.
Perhaps they could pursuade
Perhaps they could pursuade Strava to ban canal towpath segments.
Totally agree with this
Totally agree with this (certainly when there are or could be pedestrians around) but lets be honest…the sort of people who speed on towpaths know they are in the wrong anyway and won’t change their behaviour one iota because of this. Not one bit. Depressing but true
8mph is too slow as a general
8mph is too slow as a general speed limit.
People should be considerate in the circumstances they’re in. A very low speed limit is irrelevant on stretches where there’s no one else around.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
yeah fine but no one will know or care how fast you are when there’s no less around
“those on bikes who need or
“those on bikes who need or want to travel quickly should use a route away from the canal”
But a lot of the time routes away from the canal are hostile to cycling, and the reason people use towpaths is they don’t want to get run over on the A-roads.
Come back with this suggestion when you’ve sorted out safe and convenient routes away from the canals.
“On busy stretches of canal or where the towpath is narrow, the safest option may be to get off your bike and walk.”
This sums up the attitude of the Canals & Rivers Trust to cycling – they would rather it was banned (but they still gobble up government grant money for cycling to put a load of gravel and speed bumps down).
It’s not up to the canal
It’s not up to the canal pathways to take on responsibility for all road planning. It’s a shardeypathway where, like it or not, pedestrians have right of way.
No, but it is up to them not
No, but it is up to them not to suggest alternatives to canal towpaths where they don’t exist.
Runtilyoudrop wrote:
true but they shouldn’t take money intended to meet active transport needs and preventing it being used elsewhere, and then tell cyclists to use other routes (which don’t exist) if they want to get to work in a reasonable amount of time.
An 8mph global limit is
An 8mph global limit is ludicrous especially where the tow path is part of an NCR like the Grand Union in and out of West London.
Slowing down to 8mph in narrow or high foot traffic areas I can mostly get on board for, however they if they are taking lots of cash to provide cycling routes this still doesn’t sit well with me.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
It’s not a global limit, because they do not have the authority to apply a global limit. If the towpath is a public right of way as a bridleway, they cannot apply an enforceable speed limit.
If it’s a permissive path, exceeding their speed limit may amount to a breach of the permission to be there, and therefore a trespass. That would be a civil matter, for which the remedy is a claim for damages… if nobody is harmed, there is no claim.
So generally, this is guidance (unless exceeding 8mph amounts to careless cycling in the circumstances – which is not dependent on it being 8 mph, but the speed may be a useful marker). And it seems fair enough to me.
Let the wind blow through your hair if the path is clear.
Take care if you’re obliged to share.
This is frustrating and
This is frustrating and justifiable in equal measure. Yes, the towpaths are very well populated with walkers and pedestrians so slowing down is kind of to be expected. Yes, those going 20mph on the towpaths are either going to a) fall into the canal or b) hurt someone, bad.
Frustrating, though, because the towpaths ARE considered a proper form of transport to me and many other cyclists in the Midlands (the alternative being bike through, say, Birmingham city centre? No thank you!) 8mph on a cycle lane is ludicrous! This is the same logic behind creating shared-use cycle paths that are so narrow that one can neither keep a decent pace nor avoid the many pedestrians.
Honestly? I wish drivers just were better trained so we could cycle on the roads safely, rather than creating these frankly rubbish cycling ‘networks’ in lieu of (rather than as a complement to) the former.
You can use discretion.
You can use discretion. Having been rammed by a cyclist passing under a bridge at 20 mph I can understand why this advice is needed.
As far as I’m aware, I don’t
As far as I’m aware, I don’t have to have a ‘speedo’ on my bike, so how do I know I’m travelling above 8mph?
I’m happy to slow when passing pedestrians etc but I could do without them trying to shout at me once I’ve passed them, for breaking an unenforceable speed limit.
This will just create more tension and animosity
You could use a bit of common
You could use a bit of common sense. 8mph is the pace of a steady runner.
Runtilyoudrop wrote:
It would be very inconvenient to have to ride everywhere with a friendly runner as a pace setter…
brooksby wrote:
Maybe if they carried a red flag with them?
In areas of road where there
In areas of road where there are many different types of road user, or where the road is narrow, it may be safer if you get out of your car and push.
Folks it’s just sensible.
Folks it’s just sensible. Just as you would expect dog owners to have dogs on leads on a towpath, it’s not unreasonable to expect cyclists to ride slower than they would on a road.
Worth having a look at this:
I saw someone cycle into the canal next to Victoria Park in London (Union Canal?). Completely avoidable if they had just slowed down. They weren’t happy…
BadgerBeaver wrote:
“We don’t specify speed limitson the canal we just as that everyone uses common sense”
I use the Leeds Liverpool
I use the Leeds Liverpool canal to commute to Leeds and average 12 – 14mph, so this advice would add 50% more to the commute. I get it though, but funds for cycling were used (I believe) to resurface this NCR. Canal Trust can’t have it both ways
Presumably you were sensible
Presumably you were sensible anyway and slowed down at various points. I don’t see the need to stick to 8 when there is no one around, so I wouldn’t expect much difference for your journey time.
Like any shared path, you should be slowing down where there is potential conflict (and one reason why I rarely use them).
hirsute wrote:
Exactly, it’s called common sense. When there’s nobody about just go as fast as you like.
The UK Canal system is a
The UK Canal system is a wonderful resource, it’s almost as extensive as the motorway network (or it used to be when I was a lad). You can get from anywhere to almost anywhere along the canals.
Near the towns there are lots of peds on the towpath, walking dogs on long leads and listening to music. Away from the towns the paths are almost empty.
The rules are simple pedestrians always have absolute right of way, adjust your speed to suit the conditions.
Ride your bike the same way you would like motorists to drive their cars
Cycloid wrote:
They do on footpaths. On shared use paths I believe everyone has equal right of way. This does not alter duty of care to others but slower people should allow faster people to pass. Failing to do so causes issues. I agree we should slow down when passing people.
Pedestrians are often considered the more vulnerable user when compared to a cyclists. I don’t get this. Imagine a situation were you had to defend yourself against an attacker. You would be more vulnerable if you were still astride the bicycle (unless you can flee). I can’t do a round house kick to smeone’s head if I am on a bike. Also if I am on foot, that makes me better able to stay upright if I am pushed. On a bicycle I will end up on my face. If you crash into a pedestrian while on a bike, you will likely come a cropper too.
eg https://road.cc/content
eg https://road.cc/content/news/jail-dog-walker-who-broke-cyclists-ribs-282669
Titanus wrote:
That sounds just like motorist logic for getting impatient with cyclists on narrow lanes
Cycloid wrote:
I haven’t ridden a towpath for a long time, but my question would be … are the safety implications the same for a pedestrian moving aside to allow a cyclist to pass, as for a cyclist moving aside on a narrow lane to allow the car to pass?
If a narrow lane is nonetheless wide enough to allow a safe overtake if the rider is not riding centrally, then I do understand the drivers’ impatience. If not, tough.
For my money, same would apply on the towpath. If it is wide enough to allow a safe overtake of the ped by the cyclist if the ped walks less centrally then the same common courtesy should apply. If not, tough, the cyclist should wait.
I don’t have much of a
I don’t have much of a problem with this given the width of most tow paths.
I do have a MASSIVE problem with the infra in question being advertised as a cycle route on mapping or used as a justification for not installing proper cycle paths elsewhere (We don’t need a path here, they can use the tow Path…)
I also have an issue with funding for cycling rather than walking/disabled access/general leisure being used. Given normally the above tend to come out of the same active travel budget and should still be done it doesn’t matter from a funding perspective, but it shouldn’t then be used by the council/gutter press to proclaim they have spent X million on new cycling infra, what are the cyclists complaining about…
Some respondants proclaim the infra is for familys cycling etc… Remember on the flat (which is basically a definition of a canal tow path) a slow cyclist is still expected to average 11 mph…
Shared paths should never be
Shared paths should never be considered as a commuting route for cyclists; shared paths are strictly recreational, in that shared path speed limits preclude the speeds that commuting cyclists would reasonably want to travel at.
Then why are the CRT taking
Then why are the CRT taking money to build out commuter routes as per “little onions” post?
Seems like they are employing double standards to me. They want our cash but arent prepared to provide suitable paths for a commuter.
Communting speeds, like
Communting speeds, like recreational speeds, vary per person. Pre Pandemic weight gain, I used to do my 8 mile undulating commute at between averages of15-20mph depending on build up of traffic / ability to filter easily. I would never dream of using shared paths at those speeds. However I cycled near them and would see people commuting in at 8-10mph as well.
And when I’m on the heavier hybrid bike that brought my averages down to 10-12mph, I would use them or canal paths depending on weather, etc. So I don’t subscribe to the these routes should only be valid for commutes if allowed to go fast “commuting” speeds.
8 mph overall is ridiculous.
8 mph overall is ridiculous. However, I always slow to walking pace when navigating around pedestrians. I would ride around 16mph on clear sections and slow when necessary.
Here in west Yorkshire, Canal
Here in west Yorkshire, Canal and Rivers Trust have recieved about 10 million pounds in the last 8 or so years from the City Connect DfT project. This money has been spent ‘upgrading’ the towpaths on various canals around towns and cities (Leeds-Liverpool canal, Huddersfield canal etc) with the explicit aim, amongst other things, of increasing commuting cycling – getting people out of their cars and cycling to work on the canal. Local cycle campaigns explicitly asked whether there would be a speed limit, and were told there wouldn’t be.
The delivery was woefully inadequate (deliberately so, in my opinion) for cyclists, and not very family/disability friendly – narrow A-frames, speedbumps, loose gravel and hard-packed earth surfaces, which are a pain on a bike as well as in a recumbent, wheelchair or pram.
I maintain that CRT create a facade that they want cyclists on towpaths when it comes to applying for government grants, then this facade quickly disappears when the money is spent. I’m not in a position to judge whether their actions are legal or not, but I would certainly consider their actions immoral. I’m actually totally fine with them putting restrictions on cyclists on busy canals, but it is total hypocracy on their part to also claim millions of pounds of funding designated for cycling infrastructure.
Good idea. Common sense is
Good idea. Common sense is all well and good but people seem to ignore it when they’re in a rush or blame the person they saw running really fast, so 20mph on a bike is completely reasonable. So many kids and grown idiots zoom around the towpaths here.
8mph is fine when trying to be courteous of pedestrians, boat folks and others on a towpath, (not to be confused with a cycle superhighway) perhaps can even go a bit quicker if empty, using that common sense !
Ihatecheese wrote:
20 mph is unlikely to be reasonable on a towpath at any time, but 12 – 14 should be fine when the path is empty
WHY FOCUS & DISCRIMINATE
WHY FOCUS & DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CYCLISTS⁉
How about urging motorists to ‘Stay Kind, Slow Down’ and encourage them to stay below 8mph too >and actually prevent the unabated mass death n destruction they cause…
Below is just one example of 10000s of murderous motorists annually to focus on much more over cyclists⤵…
https://road.cc/content/news/teenage-cyclist-killed-collision-bus-283879
Because along the canal paths
Because along the canal paths, cyclists are the fastest and probably most dangerous thing on there (apart from the scrotes with knives and geese). The Canal and River Trust cannot tell cars on roads to slow down. All they are literally stating is a speed that is always quoted for cyclists and peds mixing in the same area. I don’t know about you but I have been almost a victim of speeding cyclists along those on both my bike and when walking.
And until we know what happened with the report above, why call it murder?
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
are the scrotes tooling up with killer attack geese now? pit bulls out of fashion?
I’m more scared of the Geese
I’m more scared of the Geese then the pitbulls / scrotes. Especially in hatching season.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Geese are cowards. It’s swans that you need to watch….
Captain Badger wrote:
Has there ever actually been a recorded case of a swan breaking someone’s arm?
Steve K wrote:
Geese are cowards. It’s swans that you need to watch….
— Captain Badger Has there ever actually been a recorded case of a swan breaking someone’s arm?— AlsoSomniloquism
Swans leave no evidence…..
No, they just drown you
No, they just drown you instead.
The point of a limit is its a
The point of a limit is its a clear rule not relying on an individuals perception of whats correct and safe. A towpath is primarily pedestrians so that sets the safe speed.
A lot of these comments could be paraphrased as a driver saying “when the road is empty I can drive as fast as I like because I am safe”.
Drivers used to use the same argument about drinking. “I know how much I can drink and be safe”
its all really about ego and individuals thinking their journey is the only thing going on.
I’m surprised this clip hasnt
I’m surprised this clip hasnt been used in this discussion yet, it was from 2018,but has gone viral again in the last week https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/speedy-cyclist-falls-into-scottish-canal-after-passing-on-blind-corner/vp-AAKL3GW
Awavey wrote:
Ouch
Always travel at a speed at which you can stop safely in the distance you can see to be clear….
Lol. Paths under bridges are
Lol. Paths under bridges are narrower too, so always be cautious.
I have done narrow boating a bit and a lot of paths are barely used, so speed is not an issue (subject to “at which you can stop safely in the distance you can see to be clear”). Always best to be fairly slow around locks though as you never know when a boater may appear as they can come from any direction.
Looks to me that the “filmer”
Looks to me that the “filmer” is on a de-restricted electric bike as no obvious noise or signs of cycling for him to be going the speed he seemed to be going. Of course he might have just let off before the filming starts.
Many stretches of canal
Many stretches of canal towpath that look so inviting to cycle along – well, you have to pick your time. If you get it wrong, as if by magic on the return journey, the bank and towpath will be strewn with anglers and their kit.
I only ran over one rod.